BOEHM v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Thomas Boehm appeals his conviction for theft, as a Class A misdemeanor. Boehm raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 24, 2024, an employee of a Goodwill store in Avon observed, via a live-stream security video, Boehm loading items that had been left as donations from the donation area into his car. The store was closed at the time, so the employee called Brandon Driver, Goodwill's regional manager. Driver drove to a neighboring building and watched Boehm for “a few minutes.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 116. Driver was able to observe Boehm “loading items into his vehicle,” so he called the police. Id.

[3] Two officers with the Avon Police Department received a dispatch that there was a “theft in progress” and responded to the Goodwill store. Id. at 82. Officer Tyler Elsbury arrived and observed that Boehm “was in the process of putting additional belongings in his car[.]” Id. at 83. Both officers were also able to see that the trunk, back seat, and front passenger seat of Boehm's car were “full” of “trash bags and other items that were taken from the donation area.” Id. at 99. Boehm stated to the officers that he was taking the items from that Goodwill to one in West Lafayette. Boehm was “erratic” and “frantic,” and he kept “changing what he was saying.” Id. at 84. Officer Elsbury asked Boehm to remove the items from his car, and he complied.

[4] The State charged Boehm with theft, as a Class A misdemeanor. The court then held a jury trial on July 30, 2025, at which Boehm represented himself. During the trial, Driver testified that, “once items are donated[,] they're official property of Goodwill” and that Goodwill has “signage” that says that “all donated items are property of Goodwill and ․ any persons caught stealing ․ could potentially be prosecuted and trespassed.” Id. at 119. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Boehm guilty as charged. The court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Boehm to sixty days in the county jail. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Boehm asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support this conviction. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[6] To convict Boehm of theft, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the property of another person, with the intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use. See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). On appeal, Boehm acknowledges that he “intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the items he found at the Avon Goodwill store” and that the “items had value.” Appellant's Br. at 7-8. However, he contends that “there is no evidence that Goodwill had an actual or constructive possessory interest in the uncollected property” such that the items he took were not the property of another. Id. at 8.

[7] It is well settled that possession may be either actual or constructive. See Williams v. State, 240 N.E.3d 1285, 1289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Actual possession occurs when a person “has direct physical control over the item.” Id. And constructive possession occurs when “a person has both (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it.” Id. at 1290.

[8] Here, Boehm concedes that Goodwill “is interested in the things people leave by its door” such that it had the intent to maintain control over the items donated. Appellant's Br. at 9. But he argues that Goodwill lacked the “capability to maintain dominion and control over the property left by its door when the store was closed.” Id. And he maintains that, until the store is reopened, “Goodwill could not take possession of the items.” Id. at 10.¹

[9] However, it is well settled that a “ ‘trier of fact may infer that a [person] had the capability to maintain dominion and control over an item from the simple fact that the [person] had a possessory interest in the premises[.]’ ” Williams, 240 N.E.3d at 1290 (quoting Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2001)). And, here, the evidence demonstrates that the donation area was in a designated spot on the store's north side underneath an overhang. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 84-85. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that Goodwill employees monitored the donation area with security cameras and staff, which further indicates that Goodwill had a possessory interest in the donation area. And Driver testified that, in the event Goodwill receives a large number of donations while the store is closed, the store will “send someone to come get them” or will work with a contractor who “will retrieve the donations in some of [its] locations overnight.” Id. at 119.

[10] Further, Goodwill has a sign in the donation area that informs people that the donations are the property of Goodwill. The fact that the store was not open at that time does not deprive Goodwill of its interest in the donations. In other words, because Goodwill had a possessory interest in the donation area, monitored the area with staff and security cameras, and had the ability to send someone to move the donations into the store, a reasonable factfinder could infer that Goodwill had the capability to maintain dominion and control over the items that are donated, even when the store is closed.

[11] The evidence demonstrates that Goodwill had possession of the items that Boehm took. As such, the State presented sufficient evidence to support Boehm's conviction for theft, as a Class A misdemeanor. We therefore affirm his conviction.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Boehm very briefly mentions that the items he took from Goodwill had been “abandoned.” Appellant's Br. at 8. We cannot agree. “ ‘Abandonment has been defined as the relinquishment of property to which a person is entitled, with no purpose of again claiming it, and without concern as to who may subsequently take possession[.]’ ” Whiskey Barrel Platers Co., Inc. v. American GardenWorks, Inc., 966 N.E.2d 711, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Here, it can be reasonably inferred that, when a person places an item in the donation bin at Goodwill, they are not without concern as to who will take possession but, rather, intended that Goodwill take possession of those items.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.